On Wednesday, November 28th, CNN commentator, Marc Lamont Hill, gave a speech at the United Nations in which he reaffirmed his support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions against the state of Israel, and a one state solution that established a secular, democratic state in Israel-Palestine, calling for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea.” Such a claim should be far from controversial. In fact, Ehud Olmert, a former Prime Minister of Israel, warned that if Israel did not grant the Palestinians statehood, Israel would “face a South African-style for equal voting rights” built on a one-state solution which granted “one person, one vote”, regardless of that person being Israeli or Palestinian. In a time where many analysts have declared the two-state solution to be dead, Hill merely reaffirmed the stance of a previous Israeli Prime Minister, and called for the dignity, freedom, and equality of Palestinians alongside Israelis who already live with such fundamental human rights. Despite such a seemingly uncontroversial call, CNN fired Marc Lamont Hill within 24 hours of his United Nations speech. In doing so, CNN firing Marc falls in a line of over 50 years of corporate media silencing Black people who stood in solidarity with Palestine, such as Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, SNCC, and the Movement for Black Lives. One thing Hill mentioned in his UN speech is the idea of people being progressive on every issue except for Palestine. The reality is that such a position can only be upheld if people are blind to the realities on the ground.

Malcolm X is a figure who laid the groundwork for Black-Palestinian solidarity. In 1964, he was speaking out against Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights. Marc Lamont Hill considers Malcolm X a major inspiration to him, stating that Malcolm “wrote the book that changed, and saved my life” and even sports a tattoo of Malcolm X on his right shoulder. In September of 1964, Malcolm X visited Gaza and met a Palestinian poet named Harun Hashim Rashid. Rashid told Malcolm of his escape from the Palestinian village of Khan Yunis in November of 1956 when the Israeli military murdered 275 civilians. This act was known as the Khan Yunis Massacre. Following this visit Gaza, Malcolm X spoke out against Israeli religious claims to the land and referred to the founding of the Israeli state as an act of “colonialism, imperialism, and racism.”

As a result of his position advocating for civil rights, Malcolm X was criticized by more moderate civil rights leaders. Maytha Alhassen writes in her PhD thesis, “To Tell What the Eye Beholds: A Post 1945 Transnational History of Afro-Arab “Solidarity Politics”:

“[I]n all his writings and speeches, Malcolm favors viewing the situation through a political lens, as “20th century colonialism.” The classic metanarrative interpretation of this and many other statements made by Malcolm about Zionism was read and tagged as “anti-Semitic.” Perceived to be a threat to Black-Jewish relations in the US. Even Martin Luther King Jr. blamed Malcolm for contributing to the “deteriorating of Negro-Jewish relations” because of his position on Zionism. To counter and overcome an alleged divisiveness put into place by Malcolm, King actively reached out to the Jewish community by giving two speeches written by his draft speechwriter Clarence Jones to New York based Jewish organizations, including the American Jewish Committee, scheduled for the spring of 1965. Malcolm’s position on Zionism during the time period that preceded the ‘67 war ran dramatically counter-current to mainstream political stances. His rebuke of the state of Israel was viewed not only as unorthodox, but also dangerous to the domestic and international balance of power.”

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which began in 1960, and helped organize anti-segregation activism in the South, such as the lunch counter sit-ins, the freedom rights, and the March on Washington, was also unabashed in its support for the Palestinian struggle. In June of 1967, SNCC published an article in its newspaper titled “Third World Round-up: The Palestine Problem: Test Your Knowledge.” This article portrayed Israel’s “June 1967 war as a war of dispossession, Israel as a colonial state backed by U.S. imperialism, and Palestinians as victims of racial subjugation.”

Stokely Carmichael, the chairman of SNCC, stated that it was because of their stance against Israel’s 1967 occupation of Palestinian land that the organization would be dismantled by a campaign of outside infiltration. Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture), stated in a 1990 speech at the University of Minnesota:

“When we read the statement, we were isolated by everybody. And I saw the power of Zionism. I came to see it. I came to know it. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee took a full position against the war in Vietnam…While we did this, Zionists supported SNCC. We spoke against the Vietnam war. We spoke against the draft. They supported us. But once we spoke against Israel, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was destroyed in three months.”

Nelson Mandela was also threatened with an end to support for his cause as a result of his allyship with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. In a 1990 trip to the United States, Nelson Mandela spoke at the City University of New York on the importance of sanctions on apartheid South Africa as the negotiation process from apartheid to democracy came about. Ted Koppel, a journalist, scolded Mandela for the support that his anti-apartheid political party, the African National Congress, took in solidarity with Palestinians. Mandela stated that “We[Black South Africans] know all too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” Koppel suggested that his support for Palestinian rights may “cause some people to call up their Congressmen and their Senators, and say, go ahead, lift the sanctions [on South Africa]”. Mandela responded by reaffirming his support for Palestinian rights, and stating that the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, is a “comrade in arms.”

Just like Nelson Mandela, the modern Black Lives Matter movement has too outlined its allyship with the Palestinian cause. In his speech at the United Nations, Marc Lamont Hill mentioned the fact that Palestinian activists advised Ferguson protestors on how to clean tear gas out of their eyes after the murder of Black teen, Michael Brown. Hill has also accompanied delegations of Black American activists to Palestine. In August of 2016, the Movement for Black Lives was harshly criticized for their platform titled “A Vision for Black Lives” which referred to Israel as an “apartheid state” and endorsed a campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until it complied with international law. Many pro-Israel organizations condemned the group and stopped giving to the 51 organizations that helped author the platform. Alan Dershowitz, author of the book, The Case for Israel, condemned the platform’s “absurd idea of intersectionality“ and called Black Lives Matter “bigoted and anti-Semitic.”

In response, Dream Defenders, one of the Black Lives Matter organizations that helped author the platform, stood by their support for Palestinian human rights. They wrote in a press release that

Their response has made it all the more clear why we stand in solidarity with Palestine and with Black and Brown people around the world fighting for justice.

Those who have previously claimed to be allies of the Black lives matter movement have shown us that they are comfortable with our resistance so long as it fits within particular confines and restrictions. It is convenient to endorse black lives matter when it benefits you. And as long as we stay silent about Israeli apartheid, they will “stand” with Black liberation in the US. Now that our movement has taken a stand against all forms of white supremacy and oppression, Black lives no longer matter. We want no part in this quid pro quo form of politics. True solidarity does not come with strings attached.

We’ve been dealing with this type of hypocrisy with our supposed “allies” for generations. On the American left, there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing. You have revealed yourselves. And now that we know who you are, we will not forget.

We remain steadfast in our condemnation of the State of Israel and their illegal occupation of the Palestinian people’s homeland no matter the consequence.”

Hill’s firing too coincides with a muzzling of support for the movement for Palestinian rights. Professors such as Steven Salaita and Norman Finkelstein have lost employment due to their support for Palestinian rights.

To the average American, there is no compelling case for why stop and frisk is wrong in New York City, but is okay in East Jerusalem. There is no compelling case for why giving kids poisoned water is wrong in Flint, Michigan, but is okay in the Gaza Strip. There is no compelling case for why segregated roads were wrong in the Jim Crow South, but are okay now in the West Bank. The Israel lobby has acknowledged that they cannot win the war of ideas. Rather, they seek to take voices like that of Marc Lamont Hill out of the realm of public debate in the hope that no one will hear them.

In his principled stance in support for Palestinian human rights, Marc Lamont Hill stands on the backs of over half a century of Black American support for the struggle against Israeli occupation. Movements of Black Americans from the radical Black Panther Party to Martin Luther King Jr’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference have all stood with the Palestinian cause. The great Black academic, James Baldwin, famously wrote that “The state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests.”

The reality is that the Israel lobby chastising Marc Lamont Hill falls into a right of passage of Black people, in America and abroad, being punished and silenced for their support for Palestinians rights. They are silencing him just as they attempted to silence Malcolm X, SNCC, Nelson Mandela, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Whether the year be 1964, 1967, 1990, 2016, or 2018, scolding Black people for supporting Palestinians has been all too prevalent.

But the silver lining is that the movement for Palestinian rights in the US is as strong as ever. Support for Israel is at an all-time low. Divestment resolutions at colleges are passing day by day. Even some members of Congress are announcing support for BDS. They attempted to silence Marc Lamont Hill, Malcolm, Mandela, SNCC, and BLM. But the American people cannot be unaware of an illegal military occupation forever. As Martin Luther King Jr once put it “The arc of the moral universe is long. But it bends towards justice.” Day by day, this arc is bending towards a day of justice for Palestinians.

Advertising

About Hamzah Raza

Hamzah Raza is a graduate student at Harvard University and an alumnus of Vanderbilt University. He has been previously been published at the Huffington Post, Alternet, the Grayzone Project, Raw Story, and the Tennessean. Follow him on Twitter @raza_hamzah

Posted In:

29 Responses

Kwame Ture was an antisemite. Maybe it was born of antizionism, but in his later career he was a venomous, rabid, sick antisemite. (referring to the jewish landlord as the zionist landlord is a sign of the blurring of lines between antizionism and antisemitism.)

Malcolm X in his pre haj career was an antisemite. He repented of much of his racism after making haj, so only those statements after haj should be counted for him or against him. He was antizionist even after making haj.

“Kwame Ture was an antisemite. Maybe it was born of antizionism, but in his later career he was a venomous, rabid, sick antisemite. (referring to the jewish landlord as the zionist landlord is a sign of the blurring of lines between antizionism and antisemitism.)”

for those who don’t mind actually engaging with “post-colonial” discourse (meaning de-colonized rather than that colonialism is a thing of the past)

first,

. “An organization which claims to speak for the needs of a community, as does the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, must speak in the tone of that community, not as somebody else’s buffer zone. This is the significance of black power as a slogan. For once, black people are going to use the words they want to use, not just the words whites want to hear. And they will do this no matter how often the press tries to stop the use of the slogan by equating it with racism or separatism.”

which I think is eternally relevant and now

Africans and anti-zionism
Kwame Nkrumah on the Enemies of African Unity (Imperialism & Zionism)
“At present, there is in Africa an intensification of struggles and conflicts between imperialism and its class allies on the one hand, and the vast mass of African peoples on the other…there has been an intensification of already existing western capitalist intelligence networks which work in close co-operation with neocolonialist governments to block socialist advance. Most prominent and active in Africa are those of the USA, Britain, West Germany, France, Israel, Portugal, Rhodesia, and South Africa.”

kwame ture is an enemy of my people. his venom lives and he is an enemy. if i use strong language against an enemy, do you blame me? you do. venom in your mouth is kosher. my hatred is wrong and your hatred is righteous. that doesn’t work. clarity is important. ture’s rhetoric was based upon incitement rather than clarity. he is my enemy. and his defenders are my enemy. can i be clearer?

unfortunately/fortunately? the biggest problem of the moment is not jew haters, but israel’s policy vis a vis the west bank and gaza. on that one needs clarity as well.

I haven’t been able to turn up any antisemitism from Stokeley Carmichael with google search. Calls white racists the equivalent of Nazi storm troopers, and says killing all those Jews was evil. Cannot find anywhere where he says Jewish or Zionist landlords exploit blacks in the ghetto, only that the attitude exists among black ghetto-dwellers that Jewish landlords exploited black ghetto-dwellers. Which is not the same as having that attitude. He was apparently rabidly anti-zionist.

You are a zionist and as such you are your own enemy and people of your ilk pose more of a threat to jews than all the kwame’s and malcolms in the world. Yonah is the boy who called antisemite. You are truly pitiful.

Zionism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. “Liberation movements fight against imperialism” Kwame Ture. ‘Liberation’ in the zionist dogma, (liberation from what exactly? european jews were never put in chains or were slaves), has been at the cost of life and liberty to the historical caretakers of the land, the palestinian people, from the get go.

“Goldberg argues that opposing Israel and calling for a binational Israeli-Palestinian state is legitimate” (**See link to Ms. Goldberg’s NYT’s article below.)

“Michelle Goldberg, a columnist for The New York Times, wrote a piece defending anti-Zionism and saying it is not anti-Semitism.

“’The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that depends on treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people everywhere,’ she wrote Friday. ‘Certainly, some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it’s entirely possible to oppose Jewish ethno-nationalism without being a bigot.’

“The column is a big deal because while The Times opinion page is generally left wing on Israel, most of its columnists who write on the country range from liberal to conservative Zionists.

“Goldberg noted that two incoming Democratic congresswoman, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, have endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, or BDS. She wrote that many people call BDS anti-Semitic because it subjects Israel to a double standard and, in endorsing a return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, could lead to the end of a Jewish-majority state.

“Indeed, equating BDS with anti-Semitism is the consensus among a broad swath of Jewish organizations; last week, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, representing over 50 Jewish groups, called Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters ‘anti-Israel and anti-Jewish’ for his vocal support of BDS.

“But Goldberg said that opposing Israel and calling for a binational Israeli-Palestinian state is legitimate. She criticized Israel for its government’s close relationship to the Trump administration and right-wing nationalist governments in Europe, as well as for West Bank settlement expansion and the Israeli government’s opposition to Palestinian statehood.”

“’As long as the de facto policy of the Israeli government is that there should be only one state in historic Palestine,’ Goldberg wrote, ‘it’s unreasonable to regard Palestinian demands for equal rights in that state as anti-Semitic.'”

New York Times, Dec. 7/18 by Michelle Goldberg
“Anti-Zionism Isn’t the Same as Anti-Semitism”
“American Jews have nothing to fear from the new congressional critics of Israel.”

EXCERPT:
“On Monday, in an interview with The Intercept, Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat who in November became the first Palestinian-American elected to Congress, went public with her support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks to use economic pressure on Israel to secure Palestinian rights. That made her the second incoming member of Congress to publicly back B.D.S., after Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar, who revealed her support last month.

“No current member of Congress supports B.D.S., a movement that is deeply taboo in American politics for several reasons. Opponents argue that singling out Israel for economic punishment is unfair and discriminatory, since the country is far from the world’s worst violator of human rights. Further, the movement calls for the right of Palestinian refugees and millions of their descendants to return to Israel, which could end Israel as a majority-Jewish state. (Many B.D.S. supporters champion a single, binational state for both peoples.) Naturally, conservatives in the United States — though not only conservatives — have denounced Tlaib and Omar’s stance as anti-Semitic.

“It is not. The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand that depends on treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people everywhere. Certainly, some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it’s entirely possible to oppose Jewish ethno-nationalism without being a bigot. Indeed, it’s increasingly absurd to treat the Israeli state as a stand-in for Jews writ large, given the way the current Israeli government has aligned itself with far-right European movements that have anti-Semitic roots.”

Rabbi Perin, in an eulogy for mass murderer, Baruch Goldstein, in 1994: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” (New York Times, Feb. 28, 1994)

In April, 2001, during his Passover sermon, Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, the spiritual leader of the Shas party and former Israeli Chief Rabbi, described the Arabs as “serpents” and in his Passover sermon, he stated that “the Lord shall waste their seed, devastate them and vanish them from this world. It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir declared during an interview with the foreign editor of the London Sunday Times that “it was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine…and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.” (Sunday Times, London, June 15, 1969)

In the view of another prime minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir, the Palestinians are of no more significance than insects when compared to Jews: “From this mountain top and from the vantage point of history I say that these people [the Palestinians] are like grasshoppers compared to us.” (The Independent, April 1988, from Reuter, Tel Aviv; quoted by Michael Rice, False Inheritance, Kegan Paul International, London and New York, 1994, p. 127).

While delivering a televised address to his Likud party in 1989, Shamir further maligned Palestinians by describing them as “alien invaders of the Holy Land…. They are brutal, wild alien invaders in the land of Israel that belongs to the people of Israel, and only to them.” (New York Post, February 6, 1989)

During a speech to the Knesset, Menachem Begin, Israel’s sixth prime minister, referred to Palestinians as “beasts walking on two legs.” (New Statesman, 25 June 1982)

Regarding Palestinians residing in the occupied West Bank, Raphael Eitan, then Israel’s Chief of Staff, declared: “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle…. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” (New York Times, 14 April 1983)

Prime Minister Ehud Barak: “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more…” (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 30, 2002)

Rafael Eitan, Israeli Chief of Staff, stated:” When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” [N.Y. Times, 14 April 1988].

Not going to comment about Kwame Ture because I don’t know enough, but here is an interesting piece about the Nation of Islam that appeared in the Atlantic a few months ago which you might find interesting, Yonah.

Thanks for the link, Donald.
The incarceration rates for blacks is one of the primary symptoms of the racial dysfunction of American society and no one is more present than the NOI and anyone who has spent any time in religious communities can recognize the sense of belonging that certain people feel when NOI and Farrakhan have your back.
the different social strata that blacks and jews occupy are frequently at odds with each other and so the social construct would lead to natural conflict.
the “advent” of israel and the aspect of zionism is something external to the conflict whereas differing social strata is essential to the natural black versus jewish ambience. urban societies are designed with such conflicts inevitable and attempts to walk on eggshells on certain topics sometimes needs a little refreshing whiff of honesty.
i belong to a group of jews who feels an allegiance to the ’60’s. we consider ourselves to the left and the moment of trauma when mlk and rfk were murdered and nixon took the presidency, that was the moment.
i also belong to a group of jews that feels kinship with the zionist project. this is mostly not harmonious with the first allegiance.
farrakhan’s level of enmity i believe is well established. given that the dysfunction of race is not going to disappear in the next 30 years (will it take more than 300 years?) am i meant to accept farrakhan’s insults with equanimity because he helps people and gives supports to african prisoners in american jails? it need not be my obsession, but certainly public taunting of farrakhan’s type will draw attention from those who are aware of history (coughlin, ford and lindbergh) and is not history consciousness a necessity?
kwame ture has the uniqueness of his voice going for him and i wasn’t watching him in order to catch him out, but cuz i like hearing angry black voices: baldwin, malcolm, huey newton, fred hampton, and in that context i was watching stokely. (I have to call him that at least once. mad magazine had some type of interpretation of the intra black struggle and i think it was mlk who sang in mad’s artists’ imagination: “it ain’t necessarily, stoke” to the tune of “it ain’t necessarily so.”)
saw the first half of the spike lee movie which includes kwame ture and a jewish cop, so it is on my mind from another direction as well.

I understand from Lenni Brenner ‘Zionism and the Black Civil Rights Movement’ and Clayborne Carson ‘Blacks and Jews in the Civil Rights Movement: the case of SNCC’ that the young Stokely Carmichael has grown up in a very Jewish-Left and pro-Zionist atmosphere and that he only later, influenced by Ethel Minor, came to see that the Palestinians had rights which were being violated. He came to anti-Zionism without first going through an anti-Semitic phase.

ad hominem critique: “is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument….”

I wouldn’t ask you to accept a judgement on Zionism on Brenner’s authority (or on mine) but there doesn’t seem to be much reason to doubt him on the expressed opinions of people to whom he was close, like Stokely Carmichael. The early Civil Rights Movement included many strands of sympathy for Zionism, as everyone knows, Martin Luther King having ‘questions of doubt’ but not getting much further . Many were to go on to more explicit Zionist advocacy. Everything (including Carson’s remarks) seems to tell us that SC came from the NY radical Left, where Zionism was a very strong force and that he changed his views only under the influence of Ethel Minor.
I don’t feel convinced by Brenner’s argument that King was just about to change his mind but that’s when he goes into speculation rather than observation. Have a good look at Brenner’s memoir. It isn’t full of anti-Z polemic and it’s a remarkable glimpse of a long gone time and of the passions of my and perhaps your young days.

“venom in your mouth is kosher” i rather like that, but no, its mainly in your mind

“if i use strong language against an enemy” not if it makes any sense and again with the “enemy” ( of my people? white racists?)

“unfortunately/fortunately? the biggest problem of the moment is not jew haters, but israel’s policy vis a vis the west bank and gaza. on that one needs clarity as well”

you Know something Yonah, i know how much those words cost you, you always surprise me just to someone like me your comments have a pretty intense “nutter” feel, maybe someday you will recover, and you know the basic initial teaching of all religion even yours…really. it is “.you don’t need to freak out about your life or imaginary enemies”, then you can get to work on yourself.

“as far as blacks in this country… well, first off the color green and the problem with people of color are quite intertwined. statistically Jews are better off financially than most other groups in this country, so the interests of rich jews and economically oppressed blacks do not overlap naturally, but only through ideology.” “WJ”

yeah but you don’t know anything either about the united fronts or in fact any of the recent history of your own fucking country.

let me gnomically say that I personally am unimpressed by white Americans who denounce the racism of the NOI or whatever when they have obviously read nothing know little, even about the present context but are firm in their convictions nonetheless…so firstly here is one Garrett Felber (race unspecified)

“Those Who Say Don’t Know and Those Who Know Don’t Say”:
The Nation of Islam and the Politics of Black Nationalism, 1930-1975

chpt 5 p.228-9

The Nation of Islam’s attempts at building these coalitions suggests that refusing to
organize with whites was not a politically narrow agenda, but one which recognized the common
struggles of all black people under a shared oppressor. When viewed from the national level, the
NOI and most civil rights organizations appeared at irreconcilable odds with one another. As
Roy Wilkins had said the previous year: “There is nothing to debate with the Muslims, as we see
it.”2 Nor was the Nation of Islam without blame for these poor relations. A flyer inviting
community members to a Harlem Freedom Rally quoted Malcolm challenging Wilkins and other
civil rights leaders: “You parrot the white man’s false charges against Mr. Muhammad!! You are
invited to this Freedom Rally as our guests so you can prove Mr. Muhammad is wrong and that
you, not he, speak for the Black Masses!!!”3 Such invitations were more provocations than
genuine attempts at coalition building. Yet, despite this bleak national picture, the Nation of
Islam worked with the NAACP, CORE, and other local civil rights groups within black
communities. Most expressions of black united fronts, therefore, came at the local level in
response to community concerns about police violence, racial profiling, and law enforcement
accountability. Even when they did not necessarily agree, the NOI actively debated its position

1
“Muhammad Calls For United Black Front!” Muhammad Speaks, June 1962.
2 Roy Wilkins to Helen Edelstein, September 6, 1961, General Office File, Black Muslims, 1961-1965, Papers of the
NAACP.
3 Harlem Freedom Rally, May 13, 1961, ibid.
229
alongside these groups at community forums and united front meetings, suggesting a much more
nuanced portrait of black political organizing and cooperation at the community level than has
been recognized.
Black united front politics have often been associated with the Black Power movement,
when nationalist ideas of self-determination, community control, and critiques of integration had
moved from the margins to the center of political discourse”

a close and careful reading of which i would expect to pay dividends

and because two women (and a black man) are better than one, i am linking to pt2 it being taken as read that the conscious conscientious student will seek out pt one for themselves.

if you don’t actually know anything but are in “no doubt” conversation becomes tedious very quickly and when you are seized with irrational hatreds its all a bit pointless even if you are getting off on “my people” histrionics…it’s pitiful Yonah when the privileged scream about black racism pitiful …i will have to sadly reactivate the no nutter rule till you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.